Book now with code EOY2025
I don't think HR depts can really do proper criminal records checks... fingerprints are required after all?
slinuxuzer wrote: Thanks Jdmurray, thats been my experience in the past (1)times, is a couple days, let me ask you this I have a fico score of 570, but I am pretty sure that at this point I have paid off all of my debts, but just havent built any new credit, how bad could this be?
slinuxuzer wrote: I was wondering if anyone knew how long it normally takes to do a standard background check, not DoD but just a normal criminal check. I have a job that I interviewed with several times, two or three phone interviews and one in person at the plant, talked money with the recruiter and now they sent me background check and reference authorization forms friday, I got them 4 p.m. last friday when I got to work, faxed em back so they have had them for two days. Also, how good of an indication is this that they will make me an offer?
eMeS wrote: slinuxuzer wrote: I was wondering if anyone knew how long it normally takes to do a standard background check, not DoD but just a normal criminal check. I have a job that I interviewed with several times, two or three phone interviews and one in person at the plant, talked money with the recruiter and now they sent me background check and reference authorization forms friday, I got them 4 p.m. last friday when I got to work, faxed em back so they have had them for two days. Also, how good of an indication is this that they will make me an offer? Depending on exactly what they are checking, it could be complete in as little as a few hours. More than likely, they are checking the things that JD mentioned, which should be 1-3 days. In my experience, once an employer conducts a background check an offer has already been made contingent upon satisfying the background check requirements. This is because they are spending money to review your background and would want to know that you accept the terms of their offer prior to the money being spent. My experience is in financial services, where background checks occur depending on the role primarily for risk, insurance, licensing, and regulatory compliance reasons. I have seen people with terrible credit hired by companies. In many cases a low score can be explained, and if there are no active collections the candidate is seen as a lower risk. Oddly, when a company is in need of a very specialized skill, they have a way of overlooking blemishes on people's records. IMO, credit scores are one of the worst things used to judge candidates for a job. I understand the point of checking credit to get an idea of whether the person fulfills committments, however, it seems silly to me that someone could be denied a job that might enable them to pay off debt because they have too much debt???? After all, your credit score is affected by the percentage of credit utilized. People make mistakes, and the punishment should and does fit the crime (e.g., higher cost of or no access to credit, PMI requirements on mortgages, etc..)...I don't see how denying access to employment is an appropriate punishment for poor credit, when having poor credit punishes one in so many other ways. Not to rant, but I am... IMO the next worst thing to judge candidates by are references - Who is going to provide reference on an application or form that is going to give them anything less than a glowing recommendation?. And after that I would have to say it is drug screening - Although necessary for some jobs such as "pilot", or any other where people's lives are at risk, what is the point of doing this for a help desk or most IT jobs? I understand the arguments about being ill more, but couldn't the same be said for tobacco users or overweight people? Please note, I am not pro-legalization, and I am not a drug user. However, I don't think I want employers to have the power to pass judgment on criminal events well after the event occurred. I do think if an employer witnesses a crime, such as drug use, they should report it to the authorities. Oddly enough, as much as I have worked in IT in financial services (where the credit and criminal background checks are stringent), I never once knew of a financial services company that did drug testing (I'm sure there is an example of one somewhere that does). Generally, the reason that they didn't do drug testing was because they would have had to fire about 80% of the staff.... MS[/i]
eMeS wrote: IMO, credit scores are one of the worst things used to judge candidates for a job. I understand the point of checking credit to get an idea of whether the person fulfills committments, however, it seems silly to me that someone could be denied a job that might enable them to pay off debt because they have too much debt???? After all, your credit score is affected by the percentage of credit utilized. People make mistakes, and the punishment should and does fit the crime (e.g., higher cost of or no access to credit, PMI requirements on mortgages, etc..)...I don't see how denying access to employment is an appropriate punishment for poor credit, when having poor credit punishes one in so many other ways.
cacharo wrote: eMeS wrote: IMO, credit scores are one of the worst things used to judge candidates for a job. I understand the point of checking credit to get an idea of whether the person fulfills committments, however, it seems silly to me that someone could be denied a job that might enable them to pay off debt because they have too much debt???? After all, your credit score is affected by the percentage of credit utilized. People make mistakes, and the punishment should and does fit the crime (e.g., higher cost of or no access to credit, PMI requirements on mortgages, etc..)...I don't see how denying access to employment is an appropriate punishment for poor credit, when having poor credit punishes one in so many other ways. Credit reports are very important in certain fields. It all depends on the job being performed and the environment they work in. A potential employee in a lot of debt can be seen as a huge security risk. If the employee is new they typically do not have much allegiance to the company or a sense of pride in what they do. They could very make some easy money and get themselves "unstuck" just by offering up some inside information or customer lists. I do not have any stats to back it up but I would assume most stolen or sold proprietary material comes from employees with the company <1 year.
Use code EOY2025 to receive $250 off your 2025 certification boot camp!
